Saturday, November 8, 2014

I know how hard it can be trying to study full time, work full time, and fulfill all your family commitments simultaneously. One of the hardest parts of all of this for me is trying to find time to do my assignments. The research just always takes forever, is scattered around everywhere, or I find something that's useful and there's no reference to where it came from, so I can't trust it.
Now, I know I'm not the only person out there that's going through this or feeling this way, so I thought I might start this little blog here to try to help people out. I'm going to post up all of my papers that did for my Bachelor's degree, which I completed and graduated with a few years ago. It's a degree in Ancient History with a minor in Philosophy.

I want to make it absolutely clear here, though, that I am in no way condoning or encouraging plagiarism. I am simply providing the papers that I did, in the spirit of knowledge sharing, and in a desire to try to help someone that's struggling to find some information out with a direction to look in.. Please be aware that most of these papers went through a digital submission process, and as such, will be easy to identify as being copied if you so choose to do so.

With that unpleasantness out of the way, please enjoy my papers, and I hope that they can be of some use to someone out there, even if it is just for a quick read.

At
the end of World War 2 and into the mid 1960’s, Australia was undergoing a national
identity change and concurrently developing different images.This essay will discuss two of the different
new images of Australia
by analysing two documents from that time period: Robert Menzies’ speech on
‘The Forgotten People’ and Sir Frederic Eggleston’s ‘The Australian Way of
Life’.The national images of a
consumerist/middle-class nation as shown by Menzies and of a threatened nation talked
about by Eggleston shall be discussed in the context of these and other
supporting documents.Events both
current to and in the recent past of this time will be mentioned to give
further context, relevance and support to the discussion.

The
first image of Australia
that will be discussed is that of a consumer and ‘middle-class’ nation.The global economy was recovering from the
depression of the 1930’s as well as the drain that the Second World War had put
on the nations.Due to the fact that
most of the men went to fight in the war, more women started entering the
workforce, and the result was a new sense of pride and of financial
independence for them.According to
Macintyre, (as cited in Study GuideAUS 11, 2009, p. 26), between
1947 and 1961 the number of married women in the workforce increased
fourfold.The newfound income that the
women had did not go unnoticed by businesses.Women were placed squarely in the “role of housewives and mothers and
consumers of domestic labour-saving devices” (Study GuideAUS 11,
2009, p. 26).This is part of the
consumerism and middle-class Australia
image that was being formed through politicians, journalists, and advertising
companies.The bush legend of the turn
of the century was being replaced by a view that suburbanization, being a ‘home-maker’,
and household possessions were a necessary part of the Australian way of
life.

Robert
Menzies talked in 1942 about ‘The Forgotten People’, or the middle class of Australia.Regarding the middle class citizens and in
relation to consumerism, he said “The material home represents the concrete
expression of the habits of frugality and saving for a home of our own”
(MacLeod in Documents AUS 11, 2009, p. 139).Further to this, Menzies said that the
middle class of Australia
is the country’s backbone.This stems
from a comment that he made earlier in his speech; “I do not believe that the
real life of this nation is to be found either in great luxury hotels… or in
the officialdom of organized masses.It
is to be found in the homes of people who are nameless and unadvertised… The
home is the foundation of sanity and sobriety… its health determines the health
of society as a whole…” (MacLeod in Documents AUS 11, 2009, p.
138-139).The question of why Menzies
makes this statement in talking about middle class Australia becomes apparent in the
next two statements that he made in his speech: “Your advanced socialist may
rage against private property even while he acquires it…” and “National
patriotism, in other words, inevitably springs from the instinct to defend and
preserve our own homes.” (MacLeod in Documents AUS 11, 2009, p.
139).With these two statements, Menzies
both makes it clear that middle class Australia is prospering and developing a
protective sense of the suburban homes that it only a few decades earlier
shunned with the bush legend, and that Australia is also a nation that is under
threat and needs to defend itself.

The
nation under threat is the next image that is prevalent during this time in Australia.Sir Frederic Eggleston stated that
“Australians firmly believe that their way of life is unique, and they are
fanatically determined to protect it.” (Heinemann in Documents AUS 11, 2009,
p. 14).This is not just a threat of
invasion or war, as was the case with the Asian Peril, but of loss of identity
through immigration of non-whites and non-Europeans and the influence of
Communism.White cited W. V.
Aughterson’s Taking Stock when
discussing the defence of the Australian way of life; “our way of life in
Australia is a miracle for this kind of world, and … the danger lies in
thinking of it as ‘natural’ and likely to endure without a passionate
determination on our part to preserve and defend it.” (Readings AUS 11, 2009,
p. 159).

The
end of World War II saw the onset of the Cold War and a shift in the way that
the West viewed the Communist Bloc and racial purity.“In that Cold War context, Australia was
becoming an important bulwark of ‘freedom’.Australia’s racial
identity became less important than its alliance with the United States
in the Cold War.” (White in Readings
AUS 11, 2009, p. 158-159).With the
Cold War outlook on communism and the Nazi regime fresh in the world’s mind,
Australia’s already existent racism towards non-whites and non-Europeans, in
the form of The White Australia Policy and the scheme initiated by Minister
Arthur Calwell to bring British ex-service personnel and their families to
Australia (Study GuideAUS 11, 2009, p. 27), had to be altered,
albeit only slightly.According to the
Study Guide, as it became increasingly clear that attracting sufficient British
migrants was simply not possible, the definition of who would be suitable and
adaptable to an Australian lifestyle was necessarily broadened to include
southern, eastern and central Europeans (Study
Guide AUS11, 2009, p. 27).As Sir
Eggleston put it, “…[Australians] are therefore determined to prevent these
norms from being broken down by the admission in large numbers of unassimilable
elements.”(Heinemann in Documents
AUS 11, 2009, p. 14).

Even
though those migrants that were allowed to enter Australia had met the approval of
the strict immigration policies, not everyone was happy with them.The newly admitted immigrants were expected
to assimilate into Australian culture and bring nothing of their own with them
(Study Guide AUS11, 2009, p.
27-28).In 1957 John O’Grady wrote to
immigrants in his novel saying, “There are far too many New Australians in this
country who are still mentally living in their homelands, who mix with people
of their own nationality, and try to retain their own language and customs… cut
it out.There is no better way of life
in the world than that of the Australian.”(White in Readings
AUS 11, 2009, p. 160).

In
conclusion, these two newly formed images of Australia, while different to each
other, are both accurate and valid perceptions of the Australian identity at
the time.The image of a consumerist
middle-class Australia was reinforced by the advertising agencies of the time
by linking consumption to being a good wife or mother or home-maker, and thus a
good Australian; because Australia wanted to be seen as modern, prosperous and
stable (Study Guide AUS11, 2009, p.
30).At the same time, the defensive,
almost paranoid view that the Australian way of life and culture was in jeopardy
by migrants and communism was in full force.“…[T]he notion of ‘the Australian way of life’ served the interests of
conservative political and social forces… it ‘not only denied the possibility
that the cultural traditions of migrants might enrich Australian life, but also
denied the existence of different “ways of life” among Australians themselves’”
(Study Guide AUS11, 2009, p.
29).These two images of Australia combined helped make Australia the
country that it is today.

Cannabis has been a
staple of humanity throughout history.Ancient cultures used the cannabis plant to make clothing and tools from
the hemp stalk as well as use its properties in religious events and ceremonies[1].The early days of the United States
has cannabis literally woven into its foundation.Starting in 1619 in Virginia, America’s first
law regarding marijuana was a requisite on the farmers that they had to grow
and produce hemp to be used in sails, rigging, caulking, food and fuel[2].The state of Maryland used hemp as legal tender, Betsy
Ross sewed the first American flag out of hemp fabrics, and it is most likely
that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence on hemp paper[3].Indeed, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin
and Thomas Jefferson all grew hemp as a cash crop on their lands and used it
for medicinal purposes.Further, from
1850 to 1942 in the United States
Pharmacopoeia, marijuana was on America’s official list of accepted drugs,
as well as small packs of marijuana were sold in pharmacies for migraines,
insomnia and other maladies[4].

Then in the early
1900’s, there was an influx of migrants to America
from the Mexican Revolution as well as from the West
Indies.These groups used
cannabis regularly, and due to intolerant racist views towards these and other
minority groups, a hatred towards the cannabis they used and sold was
developed, and by the 1920’s law enforcement was focusing on foreigners,
minority races, sex workers, and social miscreants as the main users of
marijuana[5].It is during this time that the stigma
against cannabis began, with reports that the drug caused the immigrating
Mexicans to develop blood lust, a penchant for violence and violent crime, and
superhuman strength.At the same time a
conflicting report from the government stated that cannabis caused “reefer
madness”, and still others said that it cause amotivational syndrome, or the
lack of motivation[6].It is here that the debate on the legalisation
of cannabis should look; the negative societal views towards the drug stemmed
not from a medical reason or background, but from that of an intolerant racial
one, which then spread out to other Westernised nations.

Even with the
negative stigma associated with cannabis use and the legal repercussions that
go with it, there is still a high usage rate for the drug.In Australia, the statistics for 2004
were that one in every four young people had used marijuana in the pervious
twelve month period[7].In Europe
this statistic increases to one of every two young people that have used
marijuana.With such a large proportion
of the populace using cannabis, why then is there still laws making it illegal?

Most people when
arguing for or against the decriminalization or legalisation of cannabis use
comparisons with other commonly accepted drugs such as alcohol and
tobacco.Again using statistical
analysis from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, in 1998 there
were estimated 19,000 deaths from tobacco use, which made up eighty percent of
all drug and alcohol related deaths.Further, there were 2000 deaths attributed to alcohol, and 1000 deaths
due to illicit drugs[8].Making up the illicit drug category are all
other drugs that are not alcohol or tobacco.These include substances such as methamphetamines, cocaine,
barbiturates, LSD, and cannabis.It is
possible to derive from these statistics then that illicit drugs make up the
smallest category of the drug related fatalities, and of that small percentage,
marijuana is only a small percentage again, thus making it many times safer and
overall healthier than the widely used and legal tobacco and alcohol.This opinion can be substantiated by the
findings of the UK Police Foundation in 2000 which stated that when cannabis is
systematically compared with other drugs against the main criteria of harm,
namely mortality, morbidity, toxicity, addictiveness and relation to crime, it
is less harmful to the individual and society than any of the other illicit
drugs or than alcohol or tobacco[9].This would appear to be a strong piece of
evidence from very reliable sources for the advocation of the legalisation of marijuana.

Opponents to the
legalisation of cannabis have argued that there are many problems with the drug
on the other hand.Some of these
arguments are sound and genuine, such as concerns for the health of the lungs and
brain, some are held-over social misinformation such as marijuana causes
homicidal tendencies, while others are just strange such as using marijuana
causes the growth of male breasts[10].The theory that marijuana is a ‘gateway’ drug
that leads to the use of other more dangerous and harder drugs is also put
forward by opponents to its legalisation.Fergusson and Horwood stated that it is possible that when a cannabis
user discovers that cannabis is pleasurable and non-harmful, they may think
that it is okay to experiment with other drugs[11].They go on to say that this possible
experimentation with other drugs could be due to the social surroundings of the
individual user and where they have to source their cannabis from.

This stance in
opposition to legalising marijuana could also lend itself very easily to being
a reason for legalization.The concern
and view that the reason that a cannabis user will try other harder drugs due
to where they have to source the cannabis from, such as irreputable dealers and
unclean or unsafe sources, could be addressed easily with the legalization of
marijuana.This would provide authorised
dealers to the public that would have to meet standards in the quality of their
product, (thus eliminating “dirty” or laced marijuana) and the user then would
not be confronted with a social setting that potentially had dangerous or
illicit drugs around them and be able to curb that eventuality from
happening.

Currently, no Australian states have legalised the
personal use of cannabis, however South Australia,
the Australian Capital Territory, and the Northern Territory have
all decriminalised the possession and cultivation of cannabis for personal use
by replacing penal sanctions with standard fines up to $250[12].Compare this to the high cost in resources,
paid by the taxpayers (which as mentioned previously one in four use cannabis)
to police cannabis estimated at a cost of $329 million in 1991-92 in Australia,
and there would appear to be a large gap between outgoing expenditures and
incoming capitol generated from the fines[13].Further, in those states which have not
legislated to reduce criminal penalties…it is estimated that there are up to
476 people serving up to 15 months in prison with a simple personal cannabis
offence as their most serious offence[14].This is also a drain on the taxpayers that
are paying for someone to be imprisoned for doing something that had no impact
or caused harm on anyone but themselves.

A
solution to the monetary problems generated by the policing and regulation of
cannabis resides in the legalisation of it as well.In 1988, it was estimated that the monetary
turnover for the cannabis crop in Australia alone was a surplus of
$1.09 billion[15].Given the global financial crisis and the
fact that every nation in the world, including Australia, is searching for ways to
bolster their coffers, legalising cannabis and using it as a cash crop would be
an economical boon to the country.

Another
argument against the legalisation of cannabis is that it is harmful to a
person’s health.There have been reports
made on the negative side effects of marijuana use, and list the side effects
as: a possibility to make you see and hear things that are not there, feel
separated from reality, and in the long term increase the risk of getting
bronchitis and other diseases of the respiratory system, a decrease in
motivation, decrease in concentration and ability to learn new things, and a
lowered libido[16].The counter-side to this argument is the
highly successful use of cannabis in the medical profession for the treatment
of many different maladies.Examples of
this include Jacki Rickert of Wisconsin,
who in March of 2000 police raided her home.She was forty-nine years old, ninety pounds (40.9kg) and
wheelchair-bound.Rickert had
Ehlers-Danlos syndrome which had her in constant pain and made eating very
difficult.She smoked marijuana to
manage her pain and increase her appetite.Rickert was one of eight patients in the Investigative New Drug Program
who was allowed therapeutic distribution of 300 prerolled marijuana cigarettes
per month.When the police found a small
amount of marijuana in her home, they pressed charges against her, even though
she only used it to gain some quality of life from her illness[17].Another case is that of Deborah Lynn Quinn of
Arizona.She was thirty-nine years old and born
without legs or arms and sentenced to eighteen months in prison for illegally
using marijuana to manage her physical pain.The State Corrections director Terry Stewart who is known for his hard
stance on drugs stated “I simply cannot understand how a judge can sentence a
disabled woman to prison who presents absolutely no escape risk, no physical
danger to the public, and who will be an extremely difficult and expensive
person to care for at $345[US] per day, without exploring any alternative
sentence measures…”[18].

In
conclusion, the legalisation or decriminalisation of cannabis would be
beneficial to Australia
in the areas of finance, freeing up of police resources, medical treatments,
and prison population decreases.This
would show a marked benefit in the populace at large as it would decrease black
market drug trafficking, and stop being a problem for the youth trying to hide
from over-regulation.As Dr. Lester
Grinspoon of the Harvard
Medical School
stated, “While marijuana is, in fact, remarkably free of toxicity, the
consequences of annually arresting 300,000 mostly young people is not”[19].